Full Analysis Summary
ASA ruling on easyJet prices
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) ruled that easyJet misled consumers by advertising large cabin bags as 'from £5.99'.
The ASA concluded there was insufficient evidence that this price was genuinely available across a meaningful range of routes and dates and therefore banned the claim.
The ASA's decision requires easyJet to ensure future 'from' prices reflect costs available on a significant proportion of flights.
The ruling follows concerns about the accuracy of the advertised starting price.
Coverage Differences
Narrative emphasis
All three sources report the ASA ruling that the “from £5.99” claim was misleading and that the ASA banned the claim, but they emphasise different aspects: thecomet.net highlights the ASA’s finding and the ban and mentions easyJet’s webpage adjustment; english.mathrubhumi foregrounds that the action followed a complaint from consumer group Which; cambridge-news.co.uk stresses the ASA’s specific condition that the low “from” price must be available on a significant proportion of flights. Each source reports the same core ruling but frames the primary focus differently.
easyJet baggage fees
A Which? investigation of 520 easyJet flights found none offering the advertised £5.99 large cabin bag rate, with the lowest fee at £23.49 and an average add-on of about £30.
Which? had flagged a web page stating large cabin bags could be brought on board 'from £5.99,' which prompted the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) to assess the claim.
easyJet said the page was informational and that the £5.99 price applied on a range of routes.
The airline also argued that prices vary by availability, demand and operational costs, and that the actual price is shown to customers before purchase.
Coverage Differences
Source of the complaint vs. airline defence
english.mathrubhumi explicitly notes the ASA action followed a complaint from Which?, reporting that Which flagged the “from £5.99” page; cambridge-news.co.uk and thecomet.net report the Which? investigation’s findings (520 flights, lowest £23.49, average ~£30) and also include easyJet’s defence that prices vary and that final prices are shown before purchase. This shows mathrubhumi foregrounds the consumer complaint origin, while cambridge-news and thecomet focus on the investigative evidence and easyJet’s broader pricing-variability argument.
ASA ruling on easyJet fares
The ASA said easyJet did not provide enough evidence that the £5.99 fare was widely available and therefore the 'from' pricing claim was unsubstantiated and misleading.
The regulator has banned the airline from using that 'from' claim in marketing unless such a low price is available on a significant proportion of flights.
It also instructed that future 'from' prices must reflect costs available on a significant proportion of flights.
Following the decision, easyJet said it aims to provide clear pricing and adjusted its webpage after the ASA's feedback.
Coverage Differences
Regulatory requirement vs. airline action
cambridge-news.co.uk and thecomet.net quote the ASA’s ban and its explicit condition that the low “from” price be available on a significant proportion of flights, while english.mathrubhumi emphasises the ASA’s finding that easyJet failed to provide adequate evidence that the fare was widely available and labels the claim unsubstantiated and misleading. Thecomet additionally reports that easyJet has adjusted its webpage, showing the outlet highlights subsequent airline changes in response to the ruling.
ASA ruling on easyJet pricing
The three sources differ in tone and focus.
The Comet focuses on the ASA finding and notes easyJet has adjusted its webpage.
It quotes easyJet saying it aims to provide clear pricing, claims some bags are available at the lowest price, and that the webpage was adjusted following the ASA's feedback.
English Mathrubhumi frames the story around a consumer complaint, reporting the ruling came after a complaint from consumer group Which.
Cambridge News presents the regulatory condition and easyJet's defence, reporting that easyJet argued prices vary by availability, demand and operational costs and that the actual price is shown before purchase.
These differences show consistent factual agreement on the ASA ruling but distinct editorial emphases: the complaint origin, investigative evidence on price gaps, and the airline's explanation and website change.
Coverage Differences
Tone and editorial emphasis
thecomet.net highlights the ASA finding and easyJet’s webpage adjustment; english.mathrubhumi foregrounds the Which? complaint that triggered the review; cambridge-news.co.uk foregrounds the ASA condition and includes a clearer statement of easyJet’s pricing-variability defence. Each source reports the key facts but chooses different focal points and quotes to support its framing.
easyJet pricing ruling
The ruling means easyJet must not advertise large cabin bags as from £5.99 unless it can show that the price is genuinely available on a significant proportion of flights; the ASA found insufficient evidence for that claim.
Reporting leaves some practical details ambiguous: none of the sources specify which routes or dates, if any, offered the £5.99 price.
However, the reports consistently record the Which? investigation's numeric findings and the ASA's ban and instruction about future from prices.
Coverage Differences
Ambiguity and omitted specifics
All three sources consistently state the ASA’s finding and the Which? investigation results but none provide further detail about the exact routes or dates where the £5.99 price might have applied. That omission is reported similarly across thecomet.net, english.mathrubhumi and cambridge-news.co.uk, making the availability specifics unclear from the published coverage.